SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

Ashok Bhan, Vineeta Rai, S.M.Kantikar
DLF Limited – Appellant
Versus
Mridul Estate (Pvt. ) Ltd. – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
IN RP/412/2011
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. with Mr. Pritpal Nijjar, Mr.Pranavakshar Kapur and Mr. Dhiraj Philip, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. with Mr. Anil Kumar, Mr. Rajiv Kapoor, Mr.Avinash Mishra, with Mr. Santosh Paul, Advocate as amicus curiae, Advocates.
IN RP/1301/2011
For the Petitioner:Mr. Aman Ahluwalia and Mr. Sumit Atri, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rakesh Sinha and Mr. Pawan Kumar Bansal, Advocates.
IN RP/1238/2013
For the Petitioner:Mr. H.L. Tiku, Senior and Mr. Abhijeet Swarup, Advocates with him.
For the Respondent: Nemo.
IN CC/183/2010
For the Complainant:Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocates.
For Opp. Party No.1:Mr. Parveen Kr. Aggarwal, Advocate.
For Opp. Party No.2: Nemo.
IN CC/188/2010
For the Complainants: Nemo.
For the Opposite Party:Mr. Gaurav Malik and Mr. Tarun Banga, Advocates.
IN CC/240/2010
For the Complainants:Mr. Prabir Basu Mr. S. Banerjee, Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Advocates
For the Opposite Party:Mr. Sonjoy Ghose, Advocate.
IN CC/254/2010
For the Complainants: Nemo.
For Opp. Party No.1:Mr. Sushil Bhashiya, For Mr. Sunil Goel, Advocates.
For Opp. Party No.2:Mr. Abhinav Hansaria, Advocate.
IN CC/58/2011
For the Complainants: Nemo.
For the Opposite Party:Mr. Vijay Nair, Advocate.
IN CC/110/2011
For the Complainants:Mr. M Salim, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party:Mr. Archit Virmani, Advocate.
IN CC/241/2011
For the Complainants: Nemo.
For Opposite Party No.1:Mr. Sushil Bhashiya, For Mr. Sunil Goel, Advocates.
IN CC/273/2011
For the Complainants: Nemo
For Opposite Party No.1:Mr. Sushil Bhashiya, For Mr. Sunil Goel, Advocates.
IN CC/226/2012
For the Complainants: Nemo.
For the Opposite Party:Mr. Sushil Bhashiya, For Mr. Sunil Goel, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Bhan, J., President—In this batch of cases (Revision Petitions and the Original Petitions) a two Members Bench has referred the following question of law to a larger Bench for consideration and opinion:-

“ Whether the consumer fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are bound to refer the dispute raised in the complaint, once an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is filed by the opposite parties seeking reference of the dispute to an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of valid arbitration agreement, despite the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. “

2. For the sake of brevity, we do not wish to recapitulate the facts of each case. The facts are taken from Revision Petition No. 412 of 2013.

3. The parties are being referred as per their original status as the Complainant and the Opposite Party.

FACTS:-

4. Complainant booked a flat No.810 with two parking spaces with the Opposite Party DLF Ltd. in its building project at The Aralias, Gurgaon and an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 5.11.04. The apartment was sold by the opposite party to the Complainant on bare shell con





























































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top